Why we should ban referenda on EU policies

It is hardly democratic that 30% of voters in one member state can block a policy approved by 27 member states, writes Fraser Cameron.

Fraser Cameron is a former European Commission official and Senior Adviser with Cambre Associates, a Brussels-based, integrated public relations and public affairs consultancy.

Referenda are becoming a huge problem for the EU. The latest result in the Netherlands on the Association Agreement with Ukraine is probably the worst possible outcome. If the turnout had been below 30% the Dutch government could have safely ignored the vote. But with just over 30% voting, and rejecting the Association Agreement with Ukraine by 64-36 the government will have to consult with parliament about how to proceed.

Why the “no”? It is clear that the growing anti-EU camp in the Netherlands is well organised and cares more about the country’s relationship with the EU than the majority of ‘soft voters’ who on this occasion could not be bothered to go to the polls. The latest revelation in the Panama papers that Ukrainian President Poroshenko might be involved in corrupt tax havens could also have played a role in the “no” vote.

What is clear is that the “no” result is a major embarrassment for the government, especially as it currently holds the Presidency of the EU. Dutch Prime Minister Rutte now has to reflect on what to do. He certainly does not want the Netherlands to be the only country opposed to the Ukraine deal (all other countries have ratified the agreement as well as Kiev).

The result is also a blow to Commission President Juncke, who warned of the dire consequences of a “no” vote and the satisfaction that it would give to President Putin. The Commission’s Legal Service will no doubt be spending extra hours drafting protocols and footnotes to take into account Dutch concerns. The association agreement will certainly be delayed which will discourage the pro-reform camp in Kiev. It could also delay new enlargement and neighbourhood policy initiatives. This would be a very damaging outcome.

It is too early to say what the impact might be on the UK referendum campaign but there is no doubt it will give a boost to UKIP and other “no” campaigners. What is also clear from the Dutch and current UK campaigns is that the anti-EU politicians are using the vote to bring up issues way beyond the scope of the question posed. This was also the case during the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty when the “no” side said a “yes” vote would mean the end of Irish neutrality and the imposition of free abortions. Geert Wilders, the Netherland’s most prominent Eurosceptic politician, boasted after the Dutch vote that the results were ‘the beginning of the end for the EU.’

Undoubtedly there is a growing trend towards referenda. There have been over 50 in the last twenty years. Sometimes referenda are forced upon governments if there is sufficient voter support, as was the case in the Netherlands. Sometimes they are used to try and hold a party together, as is the case in the UK. And sometimes the government believes that it would be a useful device to gain quick popularity, as Mitterrand tried to do with the Maastricht treaty.

Whatever the motives there is little evidence that referenda ever achieve their purpose. We have a system of representative democracy in Europe and this is what needs to be strengthened along with moves for greater transparency and citizen participation in EU policy-making.

As regards passing judgement on EU policies it is hardly democratic that 30% of the voters in one member state can block a policy approved by 27 Member States. One could make a case for an EU-wide referendum on some major issue such as direct elections for the Commission President but a referendum in just one Member State on EU policies does not make sense.

“It is hardly democratic that 30% of voters in one member state can block a policy approved by 27 member states, writes Fraser Cameron.”
That’s really cute considering 27 of the other memberstates never checked for support for this plan between their own citizens, it was never a topic during elections nor have the people of these memberstates ever asked through other means (like a referendum in the netherlands).so it wasn’t 27 memberstates that gave a go on this treaty, it was a small handfull of politicians who never querry’d their population or voters about this treaty who agreed with it.

If you’d hold a likewise referenda in all 27 other memberstates the results would probably be the same around the board, which brings us to the real reason they want to forbid referenda on EU topics;

Fear, fear that people stop believing that the political EU is not some antidemocratic moloch with more power it can handle.

They themselves wanted unanimity among member states before treaties like these can be made, one of the local memberstates has said no through a legally valid referenda, after which the majority of the politicians in power spoke out their support to abide by the outcome of the referenda, so that uninimity has fallen. They’d even break their own rules for the sake of their own agenda.

It’s people like Fraser Cameron who represent the discontent and bitterness towards the european union among citizens by spouting out nonsense like this. They know the EU has been criticized in the past for not being democratic or for faking democracy and it’s stuff like this that just confirms it.

I agree that one state is not enough. The referendum should be extended to the entire EU. Everyone must vote. Lets see what the outcome is country by country. Two to one against?
The author does not understand the reasons for the “No” vote. The Dutch despise the aloof unapproachable elites who run the place and grieve the loss of democratic rights. They may sense the despair of the common people in Ukraine but are weary of the corruptocracy that runs it. Having a proxy military engagement with Russia doesn’t help. They might want to solve some of this stuff before they come knock on the door, and Juncker shouldn’t promise so much without consulting anyone.

“Undoubtedly there is a growing trend towards referenda. There have been over 50 in the last twenty years. Sometimes referenda are forced upon governments if there is sufficient voter support, as was the case in the Netherlands. Sometimes they are used to try and hold a party together, as is the case in the UK. And sometimes the government believes that it would be a useful device to gain quick popularity, as Mitterrand tried to do with the Maastricht treaty.

Whatever the motives there is little evidence that referenda ever achieve their purpose. We have a system of representative democracy in Europe and this is what needs to be strengthened along with moves for greater transparency and citizen participation in EU policy-making.”

The growing trend towards referenda I believe is because there seems to be a deficit of trust in the current setup of representative democracy. The solution would be to have more direct democracy in a suitable format.

The is plenty of evidence from Switzerland that referenda’s can achieve their purpose. You can not at the same time invite citizen participation in EU policy making while aiming to ‘strengthen the system of representative democracy in Europe’.

The only thing that needs to be strengthened is democracy itself, which requires greater citizen participation and referenda are the tool to achieve this.

There are any ways this could be done. One way would be to allow for a non-binding Europe wide referenda of every possible subject in all countries. This way, citizens can be heard and the results can be taken into account by the representatives in every decision they make.

The representative democracy as it exists today is not anymore suitable for these modern times where the technological capabilities exist to take in the vote of every citizen. If this can be done for the European Songfestival, surely it can be done for the political body of Europe. Taking democracy into modern times would greatly benefit europe and it’s citizens as a whole.

This was a really shit and undemocratic vote , and nothing else and I agree completely with Fraser Cameron right ! Stupid Ratte who forgot that we are more than Dutchia inside the Union !
Was that a political decision concerning directly the People ? Well then what about the rest of the Union ? The E.U. needs a real E.U. Senat and not a Rutte or Merkel one !

Burro is talking about means of democracy ? Well Scots will be glad !
Lots of English Mussolini supporters here…….

@ Euractiv
To James !
Please disable the freely endless thumb-up clicking whilst the Provider changes the IP address ( from router) and the Internet cache is empty whilst being logged IN !
This will help some fanatic clicking grumpies end their frustration !

Here’s the thing Mr Cameron, you say “It is hardly democratic that 30% of voters in one member state can block a policy approved by 27 member states” well, this is funny, because I don’t recall the UK and the other 26 member states electorate having a say on it, we never got a referendum on the matter, because people like you and the EU don’t want us to vote, you want to make our choices for us, please don’t assume that all the other 27 member states electorate back this, because they don’t, I certainly don’t, but I never got a say. You’re frankly an idiot who’s past his sell by date, you represent all that is wrong with the EU and galvanise all the reasons for leaving this shambolic federalist establishment. Good riddance to fascism, and all like you.

Such a shame, this article… ”Approved by 27 member states” while the people is not aware of what is happening for the Ukraine (at least in my country) ? thanks for nothing.
The vote system has just changed in france already, and not for the best of the real small party who want to leave ue which cant be see in any TV channel. We’r already have no way to get out of UE (again, in my country, france, there is no referendum on popular initiative) while the law are made against the real population in EU. What kind of dictature u like ?
People like you lead us to anarchy…
We’re not childrem. We deserve to vote better, not less.

What is not democratic here is that only one country has been consulting his people and the remaining 25 have refrained from doing so. What is not democratic is that the treaties that have been rejected by referendum (meaning by the peoples) in at least two or three countries have finally be imposed to these people against their will. And from what I read in this paper, it is clear to me that the eurocrats are again and again calling for less and less democracy. It is time for us to throw away the EU as it exists today, i.e. as a crime syndicate working for the only benefit of transnational companies, bankers and corporate interests…

The UK is ruled by a party which got 38% of the total popular vote if Frasers logic is correct about the Dutch referendum then the EU should legislate to get rid of the undemocratic unrepresentative Conservative British government as well. Plus I’m certain most other EU countries will prove to be just as bad.

Trust a Cameron to want to stifle democracy in favour of dictatorship!

PS My memory must be going as I cannot recall ever getting a ballot paper with Jean Claude Junkers name and those who opposed him to vote on. Perhaps that’s because he was appointed to rule us not democratically elected to the post

The European Commission is an deeply undemocratic institution which is directed / controlled by the financial oligarchy !
In France we want re-establish democracy with our political movement, the UPR, Union Populaire Républicaine, political movement which is censured by the big medias. We have over 11.000 members, still growing, and our goal is to restore sovereignty and democracy in our country. We also want to restore the public services, and especially referendums, …. We also want the EU exit, the Euro exit and the NATO exit!http://www.upr.fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/UE-escroquerie.pdf

The European commission is an deeply undemocratic institution which is directed / controlled by the financial oligarchy !
In France we want re-establish democracy with our political movement, the UPR, Union Populaire Républicaine which is boycotted by the big medias. We have over 11.000 members and our goal is to restore sovereignty and democracy in our country. We also want to restore the public services, and especially referendums, etc.http://www.upr.fr/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/UE-escroquerie.pdf